Arsenal banter 66436

11 Aug 2017 06:49:31
In respect of Sanchez, if we pay him £15m a year for 4 years that's a cost of £60m. If we keep him until the end of his deal, we risk losing him for nothing in a year and will have to spend upwards of £50m to replace him. If we sell him for £50m, then we will have to spend at the least the same, if not much more on a similar level of replacement.
However, my gut feeling with Sanchez and Ox is that it isn't simply about money, they both want to move on.

{Ed025's Note - money will always be a factor RG, not many leave to take a pay cut mate..

Agree1Disagree0

11 Aug 2017 07:05:54
Hi Ed, of course money is a factor, but in the case of these two players the clubs interested in them can match and better any deal Arsenal offer. In Sanchez's case he may be motivated by the prospect of playing for a coach such as Guardiola or by the greater prospect of CL or PL success. In Ox's case he may also have similar aspirations. If it were simply money, offer Sanchez £350,000 pw and Ox £150,000 pw and they wuld sign!

{Ed025's Note - its the knock on effect that that causes though RG, if you give in to these types of demands it wont be long before the other players are banging on the managers door wanting parity mate..

11 Aug 2017 10:30:41
Totally agree Ed. If Ox gets £150,000 per week, there would be many first team players knocking on Wenger's door. Also, Wenger always has the highest salary at the club, so if Sanchez gets £300,000+ pw, then Wenger will have to be paid slightly higher.

11 Aug 2017 14:23:08
Surely that would be the easiest conversation Wenger could ever have Ed, as if 99% of the remaining squad members came in demanding 150k a week it would be a simple and straightforward no (after he had stopped laughing) . In all walks of life people get paid more than others for success. I don't think paying Sanchez, Ozil and to a slightly lesser extent the Ox a decent salary can be argued against as they are all good players. I think the damage is done when people see non-performers still get rewarded, and in our case that's someone like Walcott, who is supposedly on over 100k per week, when he doesn't even get in the first team, let along single handedly carry the team to victory. Paying a non-performer handsomely would cause an issue in any workplace, but i don't know many people who begrudge the salary earned by the top people in their industry when they can see what a difference they make.